The Sleeper Must Awaken by zoid

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The Sleeper Must Awaken

POSTED BY: ZOID
UPDATED: Sunday, May 2, 2004 19:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2220
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, May 1, 2004 5:44 PM

And again, welcome friends:

Another thing struck me as I was addicting, er, showing a crewmate "Ariel". There is a distinct (by my way of reasoning) parallel between Paul Atriedes of Herbert's Dune and River Tam of Firefly.

Paul's story begins in his late teens, and he possesses extraordinary potential and gifts. Similarly, River is exceptional and gifted; but, her potential is not only untapped, but unfathomed. Even she wonders aloud, "What am I?"

Of course those of us who have read Dune know what becomes of Paul. As his father advised him, the "sleeper" within him awakens, and he becomes the greatest figure in 'history', as brilliant as a nova, and as terrible to behold. What his father meant -- I believe -- was simply that Paul must (to paraphrase the Bible) 'let the scales fall from his eyes' and become a man, to 'put away childish things' and see the world 'as a man' (ibid). But no one -- not Paul, not his parents, not the Bene Gesserit breeders -- could foresee the powers to which he would awaken.

At the end of "Ariel", Simon comes to River with a hypodermic of medications. River says 'you're going to put me to sleep again' (paraphrased). Simon says, "No, mei-mei. Time to wake up."

To my sensibilities, this is synonymous with Leto's "The sleeper must awaken." What will be the full force of the powers to which River will wake? Was her lucid overmatching of Early her, "Father! The sleeper has awoken!"?

Respectfully,

zoid
P.S.
God, I miss this show. Best sci-fi ever! You can keep all the rest, written, filmed or televised. Keep at this one, Joss: your fame and posterity lie with Firefly.
_________________________________________________

(Of River) "Little Sis? I could see big things for her all along. Her and her brother both. I always knew they'd be worth something, y'know?"

- Jayne Cobb, Game Warden and co-proprietor, "Cretaceous Park", Hera; from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 9:55 AM

GUNHAND

I thought about that as well Zoid, the whole sleeping thing and a possible connection to Dune.

It looks like a pretty solid comparision. And I'm not sure if that makes me glad or leery. On one hand I'd love to have River be the cause of some big things, mainly because I'm frankly sick of her being so bat

crazy.

It's interesting yes, but there comes a point when I just say,"Okay Joss either make her at least semi-coherent or put a bullet in her."

So having her 'wake up' would take a lot of the teeth grinding out of the situation, which for me would be a good thing.

On the other hand if he sends it out that she's a Muad'dib character almost straight up, all that power, driving force for history, etc then it could really take away a lot of what makes Firefly well...Firefly.

If I had my druthers and could write her story, I'd make her psychic, have her know info that could start a Second War of Independence, and be a figure of sorts. But I wouldn't want to see her hand waving fleets and armies into destruction.

If any of that makes any sense at all, well I'll be amazed.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 1:53 PM

CYBERSNARK

No, it makes sense from here at least (except for the "tired of crazy" part. I like CrazyRiver; she makes perfect sense to me, moreso than most of the others

).

Having River turn all "Chosen One" would unbalance the story. It'd go very quickly from "real people living on the frontier" to "superheroes saving the universe."

It'd risk Firefly turning into Buffy S7.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 2:50 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

I think you're off target. River is not a "Chosen One" - she's a victim. When Simon says (no pun intended), "Time to wake up Mei Mei" he's simply saying the nightmare is over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 3:02 PM

ZOID

Gunhand:

Well said, actually. I don't think we have anything to fear, as regards Joss putting Muad'Dib in a dress and calling him River. While I believe Book may play an important role in introducing River to 'faith' -- in addition to leading her armies -- I don't see her as necessarily a messianic figure. Eisenhower was a Christian, did that make him the Messiah? Hardly. Did his faith give him the conviction necessary to make the tough decisions and win the war in Europe? Yeah, I can see that. (I'm more of a Patton fan myself, and he reckoned himself the reincarnation of Alexander the Great)

EDIT: To further delineate River's role, she's not some mystical leader. She's a weapon developed by Alliance/BlueSun, that they let slip from their grasp. In much the same way that had Germany or Japan gotten hold of our first A-bombs, it would have changed the outcome of the war, so will River's utilization by the Second Independents' Rebellion cause the downfall of her erstwhile creators. END EDIT

My fellow Browncoats seem to have come to the conclusion that Firefly was ultimately just going to be about flying around the 'verse, looking for odd crimes and getting into wacky situations. I see the story being grander. Why?

Mal states many times that just 'keeping flying' is enough for him. But is it? I don't think so. He clearly still holds a grudge against the Alliance; I think he would dedicate himself to seeing them fall. He's clearly got issues with slavery, or ownership of humans (equate with Alliance/BlueSun) regardless what name it might go by (equate to Inara's being a Companion). It might be enough to keep flying, but he wants more. If Joss didn't intend to make the 'big arc' about that more, then why have his main character want it so desperately? How will his character evolve and find resolution without these bigger issues being addressed? I believe we'd have eventually gotten to see the fall of the Alliance and BlueSun.

I don't claim clairvoyance. JW's undoubtedly got the 'big arc' stuff figured out already. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to see how he'll have it turn out. But I like to speculate -- to try my twitching, fumbling hand at prescience, too. I think that River and Book (possibly Simon, as well) would have ultimately left Serenity, if only to another location and storyline within Firely (someplace in Season 7, since Joss threw that number out, regarding how long he saw the series going). I think Mal would have been offered a major command, but turned it down. I believe he would have opted to fly his ship, Serenity, as a support or troop transport, rather than play a larger role simply because he put Book and River together, and helped those two meet their date with destiny.

Ultimately, Firefly is Malcolm Reynolds' story. He may have (IMO) history makers on board his vessel right now, but it's not their story. Their story is the framework in which his takes place.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

(Of River) "Little Sis? I could see big things for her all along. Her and her brother both. I always knew they'd be worth something, y'know?"

- Jayne Cobb, Game Warden and co-proprietor, "Cretaceous Park", Hera; from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 5:12 PM

GUNHAND

Very good points there (yet again) Zoid.

I agree that something big(ger) will wind up happening, and I'm fairly certain it'll be another War with Mal and River playing Big Damn Parts in it. What I hope though is it's logical, and even if the Browncoats win that doesn't mean everything in the 'Verse is tied up with a pretty string, happiness and puppies for everyone, happily ever after sorta way.

I can see her being an organic supercomputer to be used as a weapon, something along Mentat lines but if she sprouts a halo then...well I don't really have to worry about that this is Joss writing here after all. But I think there has to be a fairly fine line between Epic (which doesn't have to be over the top) and Messianic (which by definition does). I'm sure it'll be interesting no matter what but I'm hoping for something I can buy and not something that seems contrived and "oh another superhuman steps in at the last minute and saves the world" dealy like Dune, V, most anime I can think of, etc.

As for my dislike of her craziness, that could be just from having to explain it to 4 different Converts in the past 2 weeks. Gets a tad wearisome sometimes.

I'm definately more of a Patton fan myself, in my opinion one of the three best American generals ever. And the only one that served soley under the colors of the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 5:24 PM

STIZO

Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:
I'm definately more of a Patton fan myself, in my opinion one of the three best American generals ever. And the only one that served soley under the colors of the US.

Now you've got me curious. In your opinion who are the other two?

----------------------------------------------
Conquering the galaxy with terrifying space monkeys, one ship at a time...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 5:34 PM

GUNHAND

Well this is (highly) opinionated but my top 3 American Generals would be, in no specific order because I can't really decide quantatively who was 'best' would be:

George S. Patton
Robert E. Lee
Thomas Jackson

Those are my picks for great Generals based not just on strategy and tactics but having that elusive thing that makes men fight, fight well and win. I don't even know what to call it but Generalship maybe, they were more than the sum of their parts, if that makes much sense.

There are a whole plethora of other generals who had good strategy and tactics, leadership skills, organization, etc. But those three have that quality that makes them not just soldiers but warriors.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 5:47 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Sounds pretty solid. Might stick Grant or Sherman in there between Lee and Jackson. Can't say U.S. Grant was better at tactics than Lee or Jackson. But his stratedgy was more effective. Sherman was an excellent General.

Patton
Lee
Grant, Sherman, Jackson?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 5:58 PM

GUNHAND

You're right there Grant had some very effective overall strategies, the problem I have with most Union Generals is that they saw war as a factory production line, with graphs and charts and cost analysis figures. Which was forward thinking of them to an extent, but tended to gloss over that Generalship thing I was talking about. I never read any accounts of Grant inspiring his men to do things they probably shouldn't have achieved the way many of the Confederate Generals managed.

Sherman would definately be in the top 3 of a subcategory I have in my head, that'd be Fighting Leaders. He could rile his men up to fight like something fierce, but on a broader scale he'd juuuust miss my overall top 3.

Before anyone asks my Fighting Leaders category would be something like:

"Chesty" Puller (Old Breed, say no more)

Sherman (even though I disagree with some of what he did)

Forrest (again even though I disagree with some of what he did, and all of what he did after the war)

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 6:15 PM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Zoid-

Why I think Firefly isn't going to be about war heroes (or, at least not the people history remembers as war heroes):

1) Joss has more or less said so. I think. I'm having touble coming up with the quote.
2) River is unlikely to ever be sane enough to be an effective, consistent weapon. Again, Joss has said so.
3) This is about the people on the losing side of a war, and how they deal with being the losers, and with how they're treated by the winners. It's not about revolution, per se.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 6:42 PM

ZOID

Not to get off on a tangent here, but, Gunhand wrote:

Quote:
if she sprouts a halo then...well I don't really have to worry about that this is Joss writing here after all. But I think there has to be a fairly fine line between Epic (which doesn't have to be over the top) and Messianic (which by definition does). I'm sure it'll be interesting no matter what but I'm hoping for something I can buy and not something that seems contrived and "oh another superhuman steps in at the last minute and saves the world"

I don't think River will be a messianic figure. She may be introduced to 'faith', either of the religious variety or of the 'faith in a fellow human being' variety. She's starting to trust Mal as of OiS, and becoming part of something larger -- a ship's crew -- in the process. I don't think she will become a 'superhuman'; rather, she will be the weapon; General Richard 'Book' Wilkins will be the trigger.

But if those two are who I think they are, become what I think they'll become, that doesn't mean the show will take on a 'Big Damn Heroes' feel across the board. An analogy, if you'll permit.

Who was G.S. Patton, Jr.'s first tank driver? I daresay Old B&G could've told you in an instant; but he's otherwise lost in history. Can you see what I'm hinting at yet? Further, if you'd asked that tank driver what he thought of his brash young commander, who took to wearing a leather football helmet painted silver (talk about your shiny hats) in the tank, do you think he'd have told you he thought Patton was going to be the greatest armored field general in American (world) history?

Firefly isn't Patton's story. It's the story of that forgotten tank driver, who just happened to share a tank with that crazy, beautiful genius, before he became Patton. That's Mal.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I felt sorry for River. If you can believe it, she was a frightened, confused child. Well... Things do change, don't they?"

- Zoë Warren, noted children's author, from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 6:47 PM

GUNHAND

Good analogy there. I can see that Zoid. I think we're thinking along the same lines just I'm not nearly as good at getting what's in the ol' mellon here to look right on a screen.

Although Mal would probably shoot you if you said he was a tank driver, Infantry types consider that almost an shotworthy insult ya know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 7:41 PM

ZOID

Fireflythemovie wrote:

Quote:
Zoid-

Why I think Firefly isn't going to be about war heroes (or, at least not the people history remembers as war heroes):

1) Joss has more or less said so. I think. I'm having touble coming up with the quote.
2) River is unlikely to ever be sane enough to be an effective, consistent weapon. Again, Joss has said so.
3) This is about the people on the losing side of a war, and how they deal with being the losers, and with how they're treated by the winners. It's not about revolution, per se.

1) I believe Joss' said something to the effect, "Firefly isn't about the people who made history; it's about the people History stepped on."
2) I don't recall Joss commenting on River's insanity/instability being perpetuated.
3) As I stated in an earlier post, I think there's ample evidence that we're being led at every plot point to conclude that there's more than surrender and bleak survival going on with Mal.

If Mal's a crushed man, simply running away with no fight left in him, then he would not be as principled as JW portrays him. There's clearly a lot of fight left in Malcolm Reynolds.

One of the things I love about Firefly is that it's so rich with subcontext. There's a multi-level mystery going on beneath the surface of every show. If the show is ultimately about nothing more than running away, then all those clues to all those mysteries are merely window dressing and sleight-of-hand ("Hey, Rockie! Wanna watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat? Abracadabra! Darn, must've got the wrong hat!"). I can't for a second think that Joss is doing that. He's so deliberate in his pacing and framing, his dialogue just so; it can't possibly mean nothing.

When we next hear from Firefly, we should at least learn something more. Until then, I'm sticking to my guns: Joss' got a purpose beyond just telling an episodic adventure. He's getting at something. If, on the other hand, I'm just having trouble seeing the trees 'cause I insist on seeing a forest... Well, I'll trust JW to make sense of these clues-to-no-particular-mystery.

And that's really my only justification for my line of reasoning: why all the pussy-footing around if it doesn't mean anything? Why've we got Big Faceless Cabal Blue-handed Meanies chasing a school girl? Just to make her a Blue Hand? Why do they need someone with a 250 IQ to do that job? The guys currently in the position seem fairly mindless, if you ask me. Why all the secrecy about Book, if all he was is a bounty hunter or criminal? None of the other criminals/bounty hunters we see on every episode seem worried about someone finding out their true identities. Why go through the rigamarole of pointing out that Book's ID gets him preferential treatment aboard a military cruiser, if ultimately Book is nothing special enough to warrant such treatment by the demonstrably uncaring Alliance? They spit on the medical emergency of a whole moon in TTJ.

I could go on, and on, and on... But it looks like y'all are as set in your opinions as I am in mine (I am a little slow on the uptake). So, I'll get out of y'all's hair for a bit.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"I felt sorry for River. If you can believe it, she was a frightened, confused child. Well... Things do change, don't they?"

- Zoë Warren, noted children's author, from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE